Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hahaha, I'm not sure about his methodology and I suspect the results says as much about his audience as about colour science! But he speaks a lot of sense in his takeaways about how important straight-out-of-camera colour actually is, especially if you shoot stills. I started with Nikon and have now moved to Fuji (because I like the way they work) but I've shot with all those systems (along with Phase One and Hasselblad) and frankly they all work fine as long as you stay within their limits. Canon sensors find limits earlier than the others, followed but Fuji, but honestly I think Sony gets a bad rap for colour, I've never had a problem with them.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

its funny when people say they are picking a camera based on color science yet they are going to shoot stills in 14 bit raw and video in log or relatively flat rec 709 profile like Cineline D or Cine 4.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The methodology is terrible. Fuji shows the "least bias" because everyone goes for the warm Fuji-labelled photograph first, so even if an equal percentage is switching to their favorite brand, more of them landed on the same one to start with.

26 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

"we adjust the color...anyway. As soon as you do...you invalidate the color science."

Yeah, pretty much. Never understood the angst regarding "color" one sees from enthusiasts. If you don't like it, change it. It's not that complicated or difficult.

I hate to agree with this, but I do. I've always struggled a lot with grading Red footage, particularly before Dragon Color. Always found Alexa footage easy. But I recently watched Maniac on Netflix. The show has problems, but the look is not one of them. The color is fantastic and it's shot on Red. The Red sensors place the green and red chromasticities too close, so muddy brown is very common. But the foliage and skin tones are fantastic on that show. Now I recognize that the biases I had were largely frustrations with my own weaknesses. That said, by accepting those weaknesses, I can still justify getting a camera system that I think is easier to grade than another. But I know the fault is more mine than the hardware's.

I have found the Alexa exceptionally easy to grade. I think that's what people like when they say they like its color. But when I watch something really good shot on another system, it looks better than the Alexa footage I've shot myself. I guess I can justify my own preferences by admitting they're more to do with my own faults than the hardware's faults, weak as that sounds. For me it can be complicated and difficult to match between systems, but after watching some really good work mostly from Light Iron and CO3, I know the fault is my own. I do think you should go easy on people like me and tolerate brand preference–not everyone is an experienced colorist and for us, just choosing a system we like and are familiar with makes a huge difference. And it's much cheaper than bringing in a great colorist.

The one exception I think is color channel clipping. That can be a real bugaboo for some under certainly lighting conditions (imo) for almost anyone.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The methodology is terrible. Fuji shows the "least bias" because everyone goes for the warm Fuji-labelled photograph first, so even if an equal percentage is switching to their favorite brand, more of them landed on the same one to start with.

I hate to agree with this, but I do. I've always struggled a lot with grading Red footage, particularly before Dragon Color. Always found Alexa footage easy. But I recently watched Maniac on Netflix. The show has problems, but the look is not one of them. The color is fantastic and it's shot on Red. The Red sensors place the green and red chromasticities too close, so muddy brown is very common. But the foliage and skin tones are fantastic on that show. Now I recognize that the biases I had were largely frustrations with my own weaknesses. That said, by accepting those weaknesses, I can still justify getting a camera system that I think is easier to grade than another. But I know the fault is more mine than the hardware's.

I have found the Alexa exceptionally easy to grade. I think that's what people like when they say they like its color. But when I watch something really good shot on another system, it looks better than the Alexa footage I've shot myself. I guess I can justify my own preferences by admitting they're more to do with my own faults than the hardware's faults, weak as that sounds. For me it can be complicated and difficult to match between systems, but after watching some really good work mostly from Light Iron and CO3, I know the fault is my own. I do think you should go easy on people like me and tolerate brand preference–not everyone is an experienced colorist and for us, just choosing a system we like and are familiar with makes a huge difference. And it's much cheaper than bringing in a great colorist.

The one exception I think is color channel clipping. That can be a real bugaboo for some under certainly lighting conditions (imo) for almost anyone.

But you illustrate a good point. Lots and lots of shooters aren't good colorists, for various reasons. That's why good color science can be very helpful for some people.

"we adjust the color...anyway. As soon as you do...you invalidate the color science."

WHAT!?

What does that even mean.

The colour science of a camera is at least 50% about the adjustment of user parameters and how it responds.

How flexible that engine is...

Also for instance you can have fundamental underlying colour gamut, colour space formats, gamma curves that stay the same even if you adjust other things like white balance and hue. Do these not matter??!

59 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

Yeah, pretty much. Never understood the angst regarding "color" one sees from enthusiasts. If you don't like it, change it. It's not that complicated or difficult.

Oh yes it is. Very complex stuff.

Even different RAW files from different cameras handle differently in post so it is not just about flicking a switch and going "ah, I like it now".

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If people prefer what they're used to, as they've become accustomed to thinking it is "best" as it is what they see most often, then what impact does this have upon the results if Canon is selling the most cameras?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well I think for years and years Canon Had the best color science OOC. But now a lot of other company's have caught up with Canon. Heck like I said on here I think the new Sony's look more Canonish than Canon now. And I guess to most people according to his test Sony does LoL. The new Venice CS is no joke.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If people prefer what they're used to, as they've become accustomed to thinking it is "best" as it is what they see most often, then what impact does this have upon the results if Canon is selling the most cameras?

What I didn't like about his methodology is that he showed four images labeled 1, 2, 3, 4, of which one was the clear favorite (the one with the warmest white balance). Then he assigned a brand name erroneously to each, and the brand name that caused the fewest owners of it to switch was Fuji... coincidentally that was also the warmest image that people preferred to start with. Which would make you think Fuji owners have the least bias, as he claims, but they're also the ones who had the most popular image assigned erroneously to their system in the first place...

Maybe I'm wrong and he mixed it up when he assigned brand names. Regardless, the big difference in white balance is what stood out to me more than anything. But conspicuous problems like this in tests get people riled up, it's a minor form of trolling. Provocative mistakes like that get people riled up and make them more likely to post something, so I'm not saying he did anything wrong. Just that the methodology is intentionally provocative and more focused on making a point (and thus getting attention) than getting at the truth...

22 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Well I think for years and years Canon Had the best color science OOC. But now a lot of other company's have caught up with Canon. Heck like I said on here I think the new Sony's look more Canonish than Canon now. And I guess to most people according to his test Sony does LoL. The new Venice CS is no joke.

Share on other sites

I have the original RX10 and the CS is well.. interesting to say the least. Along the lines of my A7s. You sort of love it or hate it. I like the grungy look of both. But they do have the early Green look to them no doubt.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well I think for years and years Canon Had the best color science OOC. But now a lot of other company's have caught up with Canon. Heck like I said on here I think the new Sony's look more Canonish than Canon now. And I guess to most people according to his test Sony does LoL. The new Venice CS is no joke.

Canon color on the older cameras was so much better. Like the 5Dmk2, 1DC, 7D, and T2i had awesome color.